Hello,
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 01:24:05PM +0100, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 06:39:45PM +0800, Liu Ying wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 10:33:56AM +0100, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 02:01:24PM +0800, Liu Ying wrote:
> > > > If no best divider is normally
Hello,
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 01:24:05PM +0100, Sascha Hauer wrote:
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 06:39:45PM +0800, Liu Ying wrote:
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 10:33:56AM +0100, Sascha Hauer wrote:
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 02:01:24PM +0800, Liu Ying wrote:
If no best divider is normally found, we
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 11:13:06AM -0800, Mike Turquette wrote:
> Quoting Russell King - ARM Linux (2015-02-16 03:27:24)
> > On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 07:57:13PM +0100, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> > > I agree that it's a bit odd, but I think it has to be like this.
> > > Consider that you request a rate
Quoting Russell King - ARM Linux (2015-02-16 03:27:24)
> On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 07:57:13PM +0100, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> > I agree that it's a bit odd, but I think it has to be like this.
> > Consider that you request a rate of 100Hz, but the clock can only
> > produce 99.5Hz, so due to rounding
Quoting Russell King - ARM Linux (2015-02-16 03:27:24)
On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 07:57:13PM +0100, Sascha Hauer wrote:
I agree that it's a bit odd, but I think it has to be like this.
Consider that you request a rate of 100Hz, but the clock can only
produce 99.5Hz, so due to rounding
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 11:13:06AM -0800, Mike Turquette wrote:
Quoting Russell King - ARM Linux (2015-02-16 03:27:24)
On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 07:57:13PM +0100, Sascha Hauer wrote:
I agree that it's a bit odd, but I think it has to be like this.
Consider that you request a rate of 100Hz,
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 01:18:13PM +0200, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
> On 13/02/15 20:57, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 04:35:36PM +0200, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
> >> On 12/02/15 15:41, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> >>
> >>> Tomis patch is based on the assumption that
> >>>
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 01:18:13PM +0200, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
On 13/02/15 20:57, Sascha Hauer wrote:
On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 04:35:36PM +0200, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
On 12/02/15 15:41, Sascha Hauer wrote:
Tomis patch is based on the assumption that
clk_set_rate(clk_round_rate(rate))
On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 07:57:13PM +0100, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> I agree that it's a bit odd, but I think it has to be like this.
> Consider that you request a rate of 100Hz, but the clock can only
> produce 99.5Hz, so due to rounding clk_round_rate() returns 99Hz.
> Now when you request 99Hz from
On 13/02/15 20:57, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 04:35:36PM +0200, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
>> On 12/02/15 15:41, Sascha Hauer wrote:
>>
>>> Tomis patch is based on the assumption that
>>> clk_set_rate(clk_round_rate(rate))
>>> is equal to clk_round_rate(rate). So when this
On 13/02/15 20:57, Sascha Hauer wrote:
On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 04:35:36PM +0200, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
On 12/02/15 15:41, Sascha Hauer wrote:
Tomis patch is based on the assumption that
clk_set_rate(clk_round_rate(rate))
is equal to clk_round_rate(rate). So when this assumption is wrong
On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 07:57:13PM +0100, Sascha Hauer wrote:
I agree that it's a bit odd, but I think it has to be like this.
Consider that you request a rate of 100Hz, but the clock can only
produce 99.5Hz, so due to rounding clk_round_rate() returns 99Hz.
Now when you request 99Hz from
On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 04:35:36PM +0200, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
> On 12/02/15 15:41, Sascha Hauer wrote:
>
> > Tomis patch is based on the assumption that
> > clk_set_rate(clk_round_rate(rate))
> > is equal to clk_round_rate(rate). So when this assumption is wrong then
> > it should simply be
On 12/02/15 15:41, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> Tomis patch is based on the assumption that clk_set_rate(clk_round_rate(rate))
> is equal to clk_round_rate(rate). So when this assumption is wrong then
> it should simply be reverted.
When is it not equal?
I agree that doing clk_set_rate(clk,
On 12/02/15 15:41, Sascha Hauer wrote:
Tomis patch is based on the assumption that clk_set_rate(clk_round_rate(rate))
is equal to clk_round_rate(rate). So when this assumption is wrong then
it should simply be reverted.
When is it not equal?
I agree that doing clk_set_rate(clk,
On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 04:35:36PM +0200, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
On 12/02/15 15:41, Sascha Hauer wrote:
Tomis patch is based on the assumption that
clk_set_rate(clk_round_rate(rate))
is equal to clk_round_rate(rate). So when this assumption is wrong then
it should simply be reverted.
Travis liked your message with Boxer for Android.
On Feb 12, 2015 8:58 PM, Liu Ying wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 10:06:27PM +0800, Liu Ying wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 02:41:31PM +0100, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 12:56:46PM +, Russell King - ARM Linux
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 10:06:27PM +0800, Liu Ying wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 02:41:31PM +0100, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 12:56:46PM +, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 01:24:05PM +0100, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Feb 12, 2015
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 02:41:31PM +0100, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 12:56:46PM +, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 01:24:05PM +0100, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 06:39:45PM +0800, Liu Ying wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Feb 12, 2015
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 12:56:46PM +, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 01:24:05PM +0100, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 06:39:45PM +0800, Liu Ying wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 10:33:56AM +0100, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Feb 12, 2015
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 01:24:05PM +0100, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 06:39:45PM +0800, Liu Ying wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 10:33:56AM +0100, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 02:01:24PM +0800, Liu Ying wrote:
> > > > If no best divider is normally found,
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 06:39:45PM +0800, Liu Ying wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 10:33:56AM +0100, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 02:01:24PM +0800, Liu Ying wrote:
> > > If no best divider is normally found, we will try to use the maximum
> > > divider.
> > > We should not set
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 10:33:56AM +0100, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 02:01:24PM +0800, Liu Ying wrote:
> > If no best divider is normally found, we will try to use the maximum
> > divider.
> > We should not set the parent clock rate to be 1Hz by force for being
> > rounded.
>
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 02:01:24PM +0800, Liu Ying wrote:
> If no best divider is normally found, we will try to use the maximum divider.
> We should not set the parent clock rate to be 1Hz by force for being rounded.
> Instead, we should take the maximum divider as a base and calculate a correct
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 10:33:56AM +0100, Sascha Hauer wrote:
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 02:01:24PM +0800, Liu Ying wrote:
If no best divider is normally found, we will try to use the maximum
divider.
We should not set the parent clock rate to be 1Hz by force for being
rounded.
Instead,
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 02:01:24PM +0800, Liu Ying wrote:
If no best divider is normally found, we will try to use the maximum divider.
We should not set the parent clock rate to be 1Hz by force for being rounded.
Instead, we should take the maximum divider as a base and calculate a correct
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 10:06:27PM +0800, Liu Ying wrote:
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 02:41:31PM +0100, Sascha Hauer wrote:
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 12:56:46PM +, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 01:24:05PM +0100, Sascha Hauer wrote:
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at
Travis liked your message with Boxer for Android.
On Feb 12, 2015 8:58 PM, Liu Ying ying@freescale.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 10:06:27PM +0800, Liu Ying wrote:
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 02:41:31PM +0100, Sascha Hauer wrote:
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 12:56:46PM +, Russell King
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 02:41:31PM +0100, Sascha Hauer wrote:
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 12:56:46PM +, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 01:24:05PM +0100, Sascha Hauer wrote:
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 06:39:45PM +0800, Liu Ying wrote:
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 01:24:05PM +0100, Sascha Hauer wrote:
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 06:39:45PM +0800, Liu Ying wrote:
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 10:33:56AM +0100, Sascha Hauer wrote:
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 02:01:24PM +0800, Liu Ying wrote:
If no best divider is normally found, we will
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 12:56:46PM +, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 01:24:05PM +0100, Sascha Hauer wrote:
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 06:39:45PM +0800, Liu Ying wrote:
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 10:33:56AM +0100, Sascha Hauer wrote:
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 06:39:45PM +0800, Liu Ying wrote:
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 10:33:56AM +0100, Sascha Hauer wrote:
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 02:01:24PM +0800, Liu Ying wrote:
If no best divider is normally found, we will try to use the maximum
divider.
We should not set the parent
If no best divider is normally found, we will try to use the maximum divider.
We should not set the parent clock rate to be 1Hz by force for being rounded.
Instead, we should take the maximum divider as a base and calculate a correct
parent clock rate for being rounded.
Signed-off-by: Liu Ying
If no best divider is normally found, we will try to use the maximum divider.
We should not set the parent clock rate to be 1Hz by force for being rounded.
Instead, we should take the maximum divider as a base and calculate a correct
parent clock rate for being rounded.
Signed-off-by: Liu Ying
34 matches
Mail list logo
